I'm playing around with a fairly simple 2D space game, in which you fly about controlling a single ship. There are stars, planets, etc. I definitely want planets to orbit nearby stars, but I'm trying to decide if larger objects such as the stars should move throughout the galaxy.

The game is such that you will be mapping it out as you travel, and will possibly want to return to places later on. Thus, my first instinct is that larger objects do not move, and serve as fixed landmarks in the galaxy. However, stars moving about could be really cool, the way I see it, so I am curious if anyone has encountered this in a game before, and regardless, what your thoughts are on the issue? Which sounds more fun?

So, EVE Online[sup] [/sup]without anything but space travel and an applied realistic global (or universal, I guess) physics engine? I don't know, I'd try it, but I doubt the repetitiveness of the game would have mass appeal. 2D brings down the playability as well.

You could have the game map be based off estimated positions of real stellar objects, give it a scientific exploration feel.

Would you have any plans for a plot or storyline?

So, EVE Online[sup] [/sup]without anything but space travel and an applied realistic global (or universal, I guess) physics engine? I don't know, I'd try it, but I doubt the repetitiveness of the game would have mass appeal. 2D brings down the playability as well.

You could have the game map be based off estimated positions of real stellar objects, give it a scientific exploration feel.

Would you have any plans for a plot or storyline?

Ya, I don't think this is a mass appeal type game. Thankfully, I don't care! I don't see how 2D reduces playability, though. How is that?

And nope, no story or plot or anything of the sort. That's what the player is for!

I DO have ideas for more than JUST "exploring" in mind, but that is the primary focus by far. And just to cement that this is a game no one will want, you don't even get to shoot things! (currently anyway)

I don't see how 2D reduces playability, though. How is that?

To me, when I think of space, I have images of wide, unexplored, mysterious areas of elegant nature in pristine design. Massive objects of gas, liquid, rock, or pure density, surrounded by vast emptiness and orbiting children scattered sporadically and diverse like speckled drywall on the largest ceiling known to mankind. 3D is the only way, I feel, to completely captivate this experience in even fractions.

Not that I'm hating on 2D, 3D would just be exponentially better for a space environment.

And just to cement that this is a game no one will want, you don't even get to shoot things!

I understand some self-development project, that's awesome. You just asked for an opinion on estimated levels of enjoyment, I jumped the gun and assumed a straight-to-market kind of game. All aside, yeah, for a slightly less basic more advanced 2D game than normal, this definitely tops on the list of what I would rather play when compared to other 2D adventure games.

The engine alone is a good idea for a start. Not to mention the potential you could add in the future; dynamic mapping, custom ships, crafting and resource skills, financial attributes/currency, warfare, etc.

I'd check out Universe Sandbox. It may be the feel you're trying to accomplish, but in 3D and without a control ship or first person interaction.

I'm playing around with a fairly simple 2D space game, in which you fly about controlling a single ship. There are stars, planets, etc. I definitely want planets to orbit nearby stars, but I'm trying to decide if larger objects such as the stars should move throughout the galaxy.

The game is such that you will be mapping it out as you travel, and will possibly want to return to places later on. Thus, my first instinct is that larger objects do not move, and serve as fixed landmarks in the galaxy. However, stars moving about could be really cool, the way I see it, so I am curious if anyone has encountered this in a game before, and regardless, what your thoughts are on the issue? Which sounds more fun?

I don't think stars orbiting around super massive black holes will revolutionize your gameplay, so it's probably better to add that feature only if you have a need for it. Don't do it for the sake of realism, do it if it's going to make playing the game more enjoyable.

To me, when I think of space, I have images of wide, unexplored, mysterious areas of elegant nature in pristine design. Massive objects of gas, liquid, rock, or pure density, surrounded by vast emptiness and orbiting children scattered sporadically and diverse like speckled drywall on the largest ceiling known to mankind. 3D is the only way, I feel, to completely captivate this experience in even fractions.

Not that I'm hating on 2D, 3D would just be exponentially better for a space environment.

I understand some self-development project, that's awesome. You just asked for an opinion on estimated levels of enjoyment, I jumped the gun and assumed a straight-to-market kind of game. All aside, yeah, for a slightly less basic more advanced 2D game than normal, this definitely tops on the list of what I would rather play when compared to other 2D adventure games.

The engine alone is a good idea for a start. Not to mention the potential you could add in the future; dynamic mapping, custom ships, crafting and resource skills, financial attributes/currency, warfare, etc.

I'd check out Universe Sandbox. It may be the feel you're trying to accomplish, but in 3D and without a control ship or first person interaction.

That's a perfectly fine assumption, and I would definitely want to try to sell it (if it's fun when I prototype it, which it might not be haha), but if I did, I think this would be some kind of niche thing probably.

3D may well be cooler than 2D when it comes to space, you're probably right. I just like making 2D things! Plus they're easier, heh.

And I've played Universe Sandbox: awesome game!

I don't think stars orbiting around super massive black holes will revolutionize your gameplay, so it's probably better to add that feature only if you have a need for it. Don't do it for the sake of realism, do it if it's going to make playing the game more enjoyable.

Ya, that is kind of how I feel, the more I think about it. It sounds cool but I don't really see how it would make the game more fun. I feel kind of silly for even asking, after some more thought. Another idea that sounds awesome but I've cut out (for now) is time. I was thinking about adding some kind of time dilation device, so you could travel far into the future in the game. But neither that nor this are really relevant to the gameplay I'm shooting for.

I'm playing around with a fairly simple 2D space game, in which you fly about controlling a single ship. There are stars, planets, etc. I definitely want planets to orbit nearby stars, but I'm trying to decide if larger objects such as the stars should move throughout the galaxy.

Heh. I just googled how long it would take our solar system to make 1 orbit around the Milky Way...approximately 225+ million years. That's 225,000,000.

So say you modeled a solar system in-game. A solar system where for gameplay reasons the third planet from the system's star took 10 minutes to make one complete orbit. That would mean for this system to travel even 1 degrees around the galaxy's center would still take almost 12 years in realtime (keeping the times constant). For this star system to make one complete orbit around the galaxy would take over 4200 years. Realtime.

If I did my math right.

TLDR: No, larger objects such as stars should NOT move throughout the galaxy.

Of course you could use different time scales, again for gameplay purposes. Planets rotate around at "Solar System Speed" (e.g., 10 minutes for Earth) and Solar Systems rotate around faster (e.g., 1 hour for Sol System).

I'd still go with fixed Galaxy Objects, rotating Solar System objects. That way your map of the galaxy would remain fixed as you explored it. It would add needless complexity IMHO to have to keep updating your galaxy map if you decided to rotate every star around the galaxy's center in realtime.

Sounds really interesting. I've always wanted to do some kind of solar system game where the planets rotated around a star and you navigated your ship around.

Take care and good luck! Keep us posted!

Putting all the skepticism aside, as far as i know scientists don't mark 3d positions in x y z coordinates. They rather speak relating to bigger object in space as anchor to denote position. For a moons position it is relative to planet, for a planet it is related to star, for a star it is related to galaxy core etc. So if you want to plot courses between bookmarks all you need to do is think spatial position not as x y z but as x distance from y anchor on z angle. Stars' may change but relative position would still be there.

[quote name='Dark_Oppressor' timestamp='1338081655' post='4943601']
I'm playing around with a fairly simple 2D space game, in which you fly about controlling a single ship. There are stars, planets, etc. I definitely want planets to orbit nearby stars, but I'm trying to decide if larger objects such as the stars should move throughout the galaxy.

Heh. I just googled how long it would take our solar system to make 1 orbit around the Milky Way...approximately 225+ million years. That's 225,000,000.

So say you modeled a solar system in-game. A solar system where for gameplay reasons the third planet from the system's star took 10 minutes to make one complete orbit. That would mean for this system to travel even 1 degrees around the galaxy's center would still take almost 12 years in realtime (keeping the times constant). For this star system to make one complete orbit around the galaxy would take over 4200 years. Realtime.

If I did my math right.

TLDR: No, larger objects such as stars should NOT move throughout the galaxy.

Of course you could use different time scales, again for gameplay purposes. Planets rotate around at "Solar System Speed" (e.g., 10 minutes for Earth) and Solar Systems rotate around faster (e.g., 1 hour for Sol System).

I'd still go with fixed Galaxy Objects, rotating Solar System objects. That way your map of the galaxy would remain fixed as you explored it. It would add needless complexity IMHO to have to keep updating your galaxy map if you decided to rotate every star around the galaxy's center in realtime.

Sounds really interesting. I've always wanted to do some kind of solar system game where the planets rotated around a star and you navigated your ship around.

Take care and good luck! Keep us posted!
[/quote]

One supposes that if you combined a non-ftl drive with suspended animation you could develop a game that has the microtime environment of a day to day existance when dealing within a solar system and a macrotime environment when travelling to other stars. Creating a game that shows an evolution of not only the galaxy but also the civilisations within it might be interesting. Returning to a solar system containing a stone age society the first time you visited and is now an advanced spacefaring culture could put some original elements into a game. Imagine returning to the star of your origin to view it's death many many millenia later and imagine having to figure out where it has moved to in the meantime, all while still doing your normal trading, fighting etc. There are a number of metaphors that could be drawn giving strength to the idea.

[quote name='Heaven' timestamp='1338184978' post='4943903']
[quote name='Dark_Oppressor' timestamp='1338081655' post='4943601']
I'm playing around with a fairly simple 2D space game, in which you fly about controlling a single ship. There are stars, planets, etc. I definitely want planets to orbit nearby stars, but I'm trying to decide if larger objects such as the stars should move throughout the galaxy.

Heh. I just googled how long it would take our solar system to make 1 orbit around the Milky Way...approximately 225+ million years. That's 225,000,000.

So say you modeled a solar system in-game. A solar system where for gameplay reasons the third planet from the system's star took 10 minutes to make one complete orbit. That would mean for this system to travel even 1 degrees around the galaxy's center would still take almost 12 years in realtime (keeping the times constant). For this star system to make one complete orbit around the galaxy would take over 4200 years. Realtime.

If I did my math right.

TLDR: No, larger objects such as stars should NOT move throughout the galaxy.

Of course you could use different time scales, again for gameplay purposes. Planets rotate around at "Solar System Speed" (e.g., 10 minutes for Earth) and Solar Systems rotate around faster (e.g., 1 hour for Sol System).

I'd still go with fixed Galaxy Objects, rotating Solar System objects. That way your map of the galaxy would remain fixed as you explored it. It would add needless complexity IMHO to have to keep updating your galaxy map if you decided to rotate every star around the galaxy's center in realtime.

Sounds really interesting. I've always wanted to do some kind of solar system game where the planets rotated around a star and you navigated your ship around.

Take care and good luck! Keep us posted!
[/quote]

One supposes that if you combined a non-ftl drive with suspended animation you could develop a game that has the microtime environment of a day to day existance when dealing within a solar system and a macrotime environment when travelling to other stars. Creating a game that shows an evolution of not only the galaxy but also the civilisations within it might be interesting. Returning to a solar system containing a stone age society the first time you visited and is now an advanced spacefaring culture could put some original elements into a game. Imagine returning to the star of your origin to view it's death many many millenia later and imagine having to figure out where it has moved to in the meantime, all while still doing your normal trading, fighting etc. There are a number of metaphors that could be drawn giving strength to the idea.
[/quote]

A Doctor Who game